Statistical Analysis of the Time Complexity Measure

  • Dan Braha
  • Oded Maimon
Part of the Applied Optimization book series (APOP, volume 17)


The problem of obtaining realistic and easily predictable estimations of the assembly time for a product, especially during the early stages of the design process, is usually solved utilizing Design for Assembly (DFA) methodologies which are generally based on empirical observations and experiments, and which can give good results if complete data regarding the parts used are provided to the system. In this chapter, we show that the time complexity measure presented in Chapter 8 (Equation 8.8) and the approximate total assembly time of a product, as derived from Boothroyd and Dewhurst’ DFA methodology [1], are highly correlated over a wide diversity of experiments. The chapter also shows that there is logical consistency with the Barkan and Hinckley estimation method of total assembly time of a product.


Assembly Time Pareto Distribution Percent Confidence Interval Assembly Operation Strong Linear Correlation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Boothroyd, G. and Dewhurst P., Product Design for Assembly. Wakefield, RI: Boothroyd & Dewhurst Inc, 1987.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boothroyd, G., “Product Design for Manufacture and Assembly,” Computer Aided Design, Vol. 7, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pearson, A. S., “Investigating the Dimensions of Design Decision Making Through Product Archeology,” Technical Report, MIT. 1992.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Redford, A. and Chal, J., Design for Assembly — Principles and Practice. McGraw-Hill. 1994.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barkan, P., and Hinckley, C. M., “The Benefits and Limitations of Structured Design Methodologies,” Manufacturing Review, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1993.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bhattacharya, “Comparative Analysis and Applications of Various Design for Assembly Methodologies to the Design of Electro-Mechanical Products,” Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, December, 1992.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leany, P. G., and Wittenberg, G., “Design for Assembling,” Assembly Automation, Vol. 2, 1992.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boothroyd, G., Assembly Automation and Product Design. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, 1992.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fujita, T., and Boothroyd, G., “Data Sheet and Case Study for Manual Assembly,” Report # 16, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, April, 1992.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Lisson, W. A., and Boothroyd, G., “Analysis of Product Designs for Ease of Manual Assembly — A Systematic Approach,” Report # 7, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Massachusetts. Amherst, May, 1992.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boothroyd, G., “Design for Assembly — The Key to Design for Manufacture,” Report # 9, Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Kingston, Rhode Island, January, 1987.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Porter, C. A., and Knight, W. A., “Design for Quality,” Report # 71, Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Kingston, Rhode Island, February, 1987.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dan Braha
    • 1
  • Oded Maimon
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringBen Gurion UniversityBeer ShevaIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Industrial EngineeringTel-Aviv UniversityTel-AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations